So your argument is, lets not count the blue cities because they are the biggest? Most of the gun crime happens in Democrat controlled areas. Your one cherry picked city doesn't negate all the blue surrounding it. |
|
|
|
You really going to go with the "if the subpoena isn't on the internet then it must not exist" theory?
Who got it into your head that the cover letter for the subpoena was proof the subpoena wasn't an actual subpoena? No I am going to go with it is a public document and if it exists you should have no problem producing it theory. You claim it is real. Prove it. You have the burden of proof, no one can produce the ACTUAL subpoena issued before the official house vote. Like I said, enjoy the snipe hunt. Most likely you will just do more guffawing as you claim you are above having to prove such things to the chorus of your entourage chanting about Cheeto Hitler behind you. The fact is the subpoenas never existed and you refuse to admit it. The media and the Democrat party have been lying to you and you continue to defend them and insist they are telling the truth, yet some how no one can produce the documents? This isn't top secret stuff, this is public record. Where is it? |
|
|
|
FBI & DOJ Statistics > claims about a post on 8chan
Funny how all the gun crime seems to happen in Democrat controlled districts if all the crazy right wingers are the violent ones.
Do the FBI and DOJ have a statistic on where all the gun crime seems to happen?   https://www.thetrace.org/2016/10/chicago-gun-violence-per-capita-rate/Looks pretty blue to me. There is more if you want to argue the point. |
|
|
|
Great. Document the ACTUAL subpoena then if it exists. Enjoy your snipe hunt. |
|
|
|
It says "we are hereby transmitting a subpoena". When he says "this subpoena" in the next paragraph, he's referring to the subpoena that is being transmitted, not the actual document you're reading. The same language "this subpoena" is used in the letter to Epser, which is clearly not a subpoena since it concludes with "the enclosed subpoena".
It's totally standard to include a letter explaining what the subpoena is all about since the actual subpoena doesn't have much detail.
I've been subpoenaed.
Oh good lord. So are you telling me that his reams and reams of posting about this thing can be summed up by as him deflecting to the cover letter as opposed to the other piece of paper which is the enclosed subpoena? He could have simply said that and ended the entire topic? I do note that the other letter also had enclosures. So much wasted time. I imagine TECSHARE really believed that Schiff decided to send a 'fake subpoena' because he knew that the whole thing was an illegal witch hunt but maybe they'd think the fake subpoena was a real subpoena. In reality he probably could've just sent a letter saying THIS IS YOUR SUBPOENA and it would still be binding. No, he couldn't, because a subpoena has to have specific legal information included to be actionable legally. He can request whatever he wants, in order to have an enforceable penalty (the definition of subpoena), it is a requirement certain foundational information be included, which is not. Just because they say subpoena is included doesn't mean one was. Can you provide me a copy of the ACTUAL subpoena issued before the official vote? I would love to see it, so far all I have seen were deceptively worded requests for information with no legal authority. For the record- This is an actual subpoena: https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/(70)%20Chaffetz%20Subpoena%20to%20Pagliano%2009-16-2016.pdfThis is NOT a subpoena: https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/2019-09-27.EEC%20Engel%20Schiff%20%20to%20Pompeo-%20State%20re%20Document%20Subpoena.pdfhere are the requirements for a subpoena to be actionable: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45This is not a subpoena. See links above for why. |
|
|
|
Well, except for the mass shootings, which are done pretty exclusively by right-wing 8chan-ing incels. 8chan changed their name recently... Wonder why they did that...
FBI & DOJ Statistics > claims about a post on 8chan |
|
|
|
What the fuck are you even rambling on about "digital evidence". No one is talking about "digital evidence" but you. What is important is the FBI has FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE by PERSONALLY INSPECTING the servers, not simply taking the report of a private Democrat party affiliated security company with incentive to provide false information. One more time, it is a FACT that the FBI was never allowed to inspect the DNC's servers that were so called hacked by Russia.
You should really read the indictment of the 19 Russian hackers. The only way that Russia was not involved in hacking the DNC is if the FBI literally just made a ton of shit up. It's only 30 pages: https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download . It's really pretty interesting all the different ways they tracked them down - Mueller def had some Bitcoin sleuths on his team. I mean, the email dumps are pretty solid evidence that the DNC servers were hacked. Unless you're suggesting the DNC dumped their own emails in 2016 before the election? Why would they do that? They obviously have shit loads of evidence that go beyond just the DNC servers, btw. I'm sure a decent chunk of the 2800 subpoenas, 500 search warrants and 500 witnesses turned up something. Speaking of "digital evidence" the files in question were copied at rates indicating they were copied via a USB thumb drive, not via the internet, of course that kind of "digital evidence" doesn't matter when it contradicts your story of course.
I'd like to see that. Honestly I'm totally open read whatever evidence is out there and if it seems strong enough I will absolutely change my opinion on what I think probably happened. No one said anything about Crowdstrike being run by a Russian oligarch, that is a non-sequitur and a straw man.
You quoted it yourself dude . he said "Crowdstrike owner = Ukrainian oligarch, for example.". How does Ukraine come into the story in your opinion? We did discuss the non-subpoena subpoenas issued before the official vote, and I proved conclusively they were not subpoenas but requests for information, and showed actually legally enforceable subpoenas for comparison, then you went quiet and refused to discuss the issue.
We must have went back and forth on the subpoenas 30+ times. I absolutely disagree with your logic and I'm fairly confident the subpoenas are enforceable. This is a unique situation and it's not that simple. I'm not a lawyer or a judge though, and neither are you, but I think if you were you'd understand that issues like this aren't black and white. There are far smarter and experienced people than both of us on either side of this argument. The only person that can decide conclusively is a judge. By the way, you could save yourself a lot of typing by knocking it off with all the personal attacks. Everyone already knows you think I'm less intelligent and informed than you. First of all, "everyone knows", what the fuck kind of argument is this? Everyone knows when you can't form a logical argument, substituting rhetorical tricks is a useful strategy to avoid revealing this fact. Serves as a good distraction too, declaring yourself as some kind of victim that is some how being subjugated in the freedom and confines of one's own home. Very touching. Can you stick to the facts and skip the mind reader act? I don't think you are dumb, I think you are dishonest. Report breaking down why the "Guccifer 2" DNC "hack" was actually a local leak and could not have been a remote hack. “The metadata established several facts in this regard with granular precision: On the evening of July 5, 2016, 1,976 megabytes of data were downloaded from the DNC’s server. The operation took 87 seconds. This yields a transfer rate of 22.7 megabytes per second. These statistics are matters of record and essential to disproving the hack theory. No Internet service provider, such as a hacker would have had to use in mid-2016, was capable of downloading data at this speed.” https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/The DNC didn't dump its own files, Seth Rich did, and he payed with his life days later. This is why Julian Assange is so important, he can testify as to who was his source for the files. Assange might end up joining Epstein, but time will tell. He will be extradited soon, then we will all know for sure as he is the one man alive able to prove it. For the record- This is an actual subpoena: https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/(70)%20Chaffetz%20Subpoena%20to%20Pagliano%2009-16-2016.pdfThis is NOT a subpoena: https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/2019-09-27.EEC%20Engel%20Schiff%20%20to%20Pompeo-%20State%20re%20Document%20Subpoena.pdfSome times the law is very black and white, and it is that way when it comes to legally enforceable documents. They have to be constructed in a specific way and include very specific information to be actionable. here are the requirements for a subpoena to be actionable: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45Your so called "subpoena" includes none of this information or other basic foundational requirements for a subpoena to function and be valid. A judge will never rule on it because there is nothing to take legal action on, it was a letter requesting information. Nothing more. |
|
|
|
Relevant meme:
-snip-
True story.
I know. It's a big problem that all the nut-job psychos are always on the side of the ultra-rich Republicans/Conservatives/right-wingers. There were plenty of people wanting to assassinate Obama because of outrageous policies like providing basic healthcare to poor people. You know, human rights stuff. But no-one wants to assassinate Trump, because all the gun-totin' crazies are big Trump fans. Yee-haw. Funny how all the gun crime seems to happen in Democrat controlled districts if all the crazy right wingers are the violent ones. |
|
|
|
Ukraine meddling with the 2016 elections.
Can you explain the "Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election" conspiracy theory for me? Do people think that it was Ukraine, not Russia that was responsible for Hillarys emails being released? I've been looking for evidence or a clear explanation but can't find anything other than the Crowdstrike stuff that has been debunked. If "debunked," why did Trump ask the Pres of Ukraine to look into it? I guess what I'm asking is this. Do you know better and more than Trump? It's basically just Trump saying "No U" to all the proof that Russia meddled in the election to help Trump get elected. Also, he could use the fact that Ukraine is investigating the DNC to legitimize the conspiracy theory and use it as ammo to attack Democrats. The whole theory really is pretty nuts. I did some more research, the theory really is that Russia was not involved, it was the DNC and Ukraine that hacked the DNC and then leaked all those DNC emails. I mean, come on. Also, Crowdstrike isn't a Ukranian company. It's located in California and publicly traded. There's no evidence that the servers are in Ukraine or were ever in Ukraine. The FBI did have access to the data from the servers. They used it as evidence to indict 12 Russian hacker for hacking the DNC and other Democrats. The indictment explains in detail exactly how they hacked the DNC. https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/downloadThere are a ton of examples like this one: For example, on or about March 19, 2016, LUKASHEV and his co-conspirators
created and sent a spearphishing email to the chairman of the Clinton Campaign.
LUKASHEV used the account “john356gh” at an online service that abbreviated
lengthy website addresses (referred to as a “URL-shortening service”).
LUKASHEV used the account to mask a link contained in the spearphishing email,
which directed the recipient to a GRU-created website. LUKASHEV altered the
appearance of the sender email address in order to make it look like the email was
a security notification from Google (a technique known as “spoofing”), instructing
the user to change his password by clicking the embedded link. Those instructions
were followed. On or about March 21, 2016, LUKASHEV, YERMAKOV, and
their co-conspirators stole the contents of the chairman’s email account, which
consisted of over 50,000 emails. What proof? The Russia investigations are over. There never was any proof. It has been 3 years, how much more time do you need to produce it? Some one who has a story about how they think it happened is not the same thing as physical evidence, such as the hardware itself. One is a theory, the other is physical evidence. Evidence now points to a coverup within the DNC of their own crimes. The fact that they never released the server to the FBI is a significant factor. Crowdstrike has the raw data. That is why Trump mentioned it in his phone call to the Ukrainian president, because he knew this would be a good opportunity to use the countless, endless, and baseless accusations against him to draw attention to some real election meddling in 2016, including physical evidence. Now millions of people are looking into Crowdstrike as Biden's long history of pay for play deals get exposed in the process. By the way, still no comment on those non-subpoena subpoenas? Digital evidence in a computer related crime is just as valuable (and admissible in court) in a computer related crime as physical evidence in a murder. Unless you're dusting for fingerprints or checking for DNA, an image of a hard drive or server is the exact same thing as having the actual hardware. It's not like when you take a picture of a picture, where you lose a little bit of quality each time. When you image a drive it's a byte for byte exact digital duplicate. There is no way to hide anything from being digitally imaged, including data that may have been deleted but recoverable. For these reason, it's standard practice to image a drive when practical rather than physically seize it. Also, I'm pretty sure when they actually seize computers or servers, they just image the hard drive and any ram and then investigate the images. Not 100% sure how the FBI does it, but many other LE agencies do it that way. It also seems incredibly unlikely that anyone could trick the FBI digital forensics team (world class) into thinking all those hacks happened at those exact times and dates by those exact Russians. We've already discussed the subpoenas. I think they're legal, you think they're not actually subpoenas. I think a judge is going to rule on a couple soon (McGhan and Bolton I think), so we'll get to find out for sure. If I'm wrong I will definitely let you know I was wrong and you were right. Crowdstrike owner = Ukrainian oligarch, for example.
I highly suggest you do some research. I'm not saying that to be a smart ass. Go try to prove yourself wrong to yourself, just start googling and clicking links and judging each source on it's own. IF you seriously think Crowdstrike is owned by a Russian Oligarch then you've been reading too many conspiracy blogs or something. What the fuck are you even rambling on about "digital evidence". No one is talking about "digital evidence" but you. What is important is the FBI has FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE by PERSONALLY INSPECTING the servers, not simply taking the report of a private Democrat party affiliated security company with incentive to provide false information. One more time, it is a FACT that the FBI was never allowed to inspect the DNC's servers that were so called hacked by Russia. Speaking of "digital evidence" the files in question were copied at rates indicating they were copied via a USB thumb drive, not via the internet, of course that kind of "digital evidence" doesn't matter when it contradicts your story of course. "it is incredibly unlikely", well fuck, you say it is unlikely! Case closed, that is all the proof we need, you think it is unlikely! Why didn't you just say that before? Unlikely of course unless they had their own incentives to cover it up, but lets all keep pretending the FBI being barred from a first hand inspection of the servers is not a big deal and is not a breech of custody of evidence standards. We did discuss the non-subpoena subpoenas issued before the official vote, and I proved conclusively they were not subpoenas but requests for information, and showed actually legally enforceable subpoenas for comparison, then you went quiet and refused to discuss the issue. Now I see your strategy is to wait for a new real subpoena to be issued so you can pretend as if the previously issued letters were real subpoenas. Who cares if the Democrat party is lying to everyone along with the media right? What is important is they are on "my side", and the ends justify the means right? No one said anything about Crowdstrike being run by a Russian oligarch, that is a non-sequitur and a straw man. At least I made an argument. You substituted Tumblr in lieu of having independent thoughts. Bruh... that's deep. Don't forget to include some yoga pants shots. |
|
|
|
Ukraine meddling with the 2016 elections.
Can you explain the "Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election" conspiracy theory for me? Do people think that it was Ukraine, not Russia that was responsible for Hillarys emails being released? I've been looking for evidence or a clear explanation but can't find anything other than the Crowdstrike stuff that has been debunked. If "debunked," why did Trump ask the Pres of Ukraine to look into it? I guess what I'm asking is this. Do you know better and more than Trump? It's basically just Trump saying "No U" to all the proof that Russia meddled in the election to help Trump get elected. Also, he could use the fact that Ukraine is investigating the DNC to legitimize the conspiracy theory and use it as ammo to attack Democrats. The whole theory really is pretty nuts. I did some more research, the theory really is that Russia was not involved, it was the DNC and Ukraine that hacked the DNC and then leaked all those DNC emails. I mean, come on. Also, Crowdstrike isn't a Ukranian company. It's located in California and publicly traded. There's no evidence that the servers are in Ukraine or were ever in Ukraine. The FBI did have access to the data from the servers. They used it as evidence to indict 12 Russian hacker for hacking the DNC and other Democrats. The indictment explains in detail exactly how they hacked the DNC. https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/downloadThere are a ton of examples like this one: For example, on or about March 19, 2016, LUKASHEV and his co-conspirators
created and sent a spearphishing email to the chairman of the Clinton Campaign.
LUKASHEV used the account “john356gh” at an online service that abbreviated
lengthy website addresses (referred to as a “URL-shortening service”).
LUKASHEV used the account to mask a link contained in the spearphishing email,
which directed the recipient to a GRU-created website. LUKASHEV altered the
appearance of the sender email address in order to make it look like the email was
a security notification from Google (a technique known as “spoofing”), instructing
the user to change his password by clicking the embedded link. Those instructions
were followed. On or about March 21, 2016, LUKASHEV, YERMAKOV, and
their co-conspirators stole the contents of the chairman’s email account, which
consisted of over 50,000 emails. What proof? The Russia investigations are over. There never was any proof. It has been 3 years, how much more time do you need to produce it? Some one who has a story about how they think it happened is not the same thing as physical evidence, such as the hardware itself. One is a theory, the other is physical evidence. Evidence now points to a coverup within the DNC of their own crimes. The fact that they never released the server to the FBI is a significant factor. Crowdstrike has the raw data. That is why Trump mentioned it in his phone call to the Ukrainian president, because he knew this would be a good opportunity to use the countless, endless, and baseless accusations against him to draw attention to some real election meddling in 2016, including physical evidence. Now millions of people are looking into Crowdstrike as Biden's long history of pay for play deals get exposed in the process. By the way, still no comment on those non-subpoena subpoenas? |
|
|
|
Ukraine meddling with the 2016 elections.
Can you explain the "Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election" conspiracy theory for me? Do people think that it was Ukraine, not Russia that was responsible for Hillarys emails being released? I've been looking for evidence or a clear explanation but can't find anything other than the Crowdstrike stuff that has been debunked. Yeah, just slap the word "debunked" on any problematic cognitive dissonance you encounter along the way. It makes life much easier. The FBI was never allowed access to the DNC server "The Russians" supposedly hacked. The only entity who had actually examined it an implicated the Russians based on their "analysis", that's right your "debunked" Crowd-strike. The same Crowdstrike that also has access to files deleted by the Clintons against a court order to preserve them, on a server.... in Ukraine. No connections whatsoever. Ok my bad. I guess the reason so many people consider it debunked is because the FBI indictment was incredibly detailed on exactly how and who hacked all the DNC officials and having the physical servers wouldn't be necessary to prove all of that. So you think Ukraine and the democrats were responsible for the emails getting hacked and made public before the election? Or was it someone else and they were just trying to frame Russia? Really? Your conclusion is not having government investigators have access to examine the very server on which the materials were allegedly hacked from is not a big deal because the FBI report was "detailed". What? The server is the primary piece of evidence, for the FBI to never examine it is at best extremely negligent, and at worst covering up something, especially in a circumstance of this importance. Seth rich leaked the information from the inside, then he was murdered shortly after. That's when this whole Russia collusion narrative popped up to distract from the dead DNC insider who just leaked very damaging information and to point it all back at Trump in the classic "NO U!!!1" strategy the dems love so much to use. After all, if you accuse your opponent of what you yourself are guilty of, then any accusations superficially appear to be refractory now don't they? That is until the facts come out... and there are plenty of those unlike with Russia gate. |
|
|
|
Ukraine meddling with the 2016 elections.
Can you explain the "Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election" conspiracy theory for me? Do people think that it was Ukraine, not Russia that was responsible for Hillarys emails being released? I've been looking for evidence or a clear explanation but can't find anything other than the Crowdstrike stuff that has been debunked. Yeah, just slap the word "debunked" on any problematic cognitive dissonance you encounter along the way. It makes life much easier. The FBI was never allowed access to the DNC server "The Russians" supposedly hacked. The only entity who had actually examined it an implicated the Russians based on their "analysis", that's right your "debunked" Crowd-strike. The same Crowdstrike that also has access to files deleted by the Clintons against a court order to preserve them, on a server.... in Ukraine. No connections whatsoever. |
|
|
|
My question is why did she not leak this story herself 3 years ago? How much more abuse had occurred in that time frame?
3 years ago? things had been leaked since the millenium. it just wasnt important then as epstien was 'just another man with popular friends' but now he is dead its like its the top story and everyone is trying to glory hound themselves like they always knew it and they were part of the leak or they had information someone else didnt have.. sorry but brits knew about epstien and his underage stuff decades ago.. people knew epstien invites big named people for 'special parties' ages ago you cant leak a leak if its already leaked. You mean kind of like Jimmy Savile? Oh, no one look at the skeletons in that closet mates! |
|
|
|
I don't need an entourage, you seldom travel without one.
Nobody has an "entourage", and neither is anybody traveling anywhere. This is a forum. I can't stop other people from writing comments, nor encourage them, nor do I try to. Anybody is free to do as they please. Thanks for again proving you have trouble separating your personal feelings about discussions in Politics & Society and forum policy discussion in other sections.
Your projections don't change the fact that you're the only one here trying to do any censoring. How long did the Russia-gate investigations last? 3 years? When did these accusations about manipulation in the 2016 elections start surfacing? Very recently.
Don't know, don't care. Its irrelevant to this discussion. Democrats only allow investigations of their opponents though, investigations of anyone they support is just meddling of course.
 Whatever you say, here comes one now... ^ I don't have the power to censor anything. I am not a moderator. Also I report people when they break the rules, not because they make a point I think should be hidden. What? 2016 election meddling via Ukraine by the Bidens is irrelevant to the discussion, but posts about nothing but personal attacks is "on topic" and "censorship" if reported? Yeah ok buddy. When did these accusations about manipulation in the 2016 elections start surfacing? Very recently.
You either have selective memory or are just out of the loop. https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446One has to wonder why NOW is when Trump decided to make it an issue when he's had 2 1/2 years to have investigations happen. Oh wait. Election season. Gotcha. It's clear from one of the transcripts that Trump has a bone to pick with Ukraine saying "They screwed me". But now is the time for some pay back time for him and gain political advantage out of it cause that's what he does. Use his office to settle personal scores. One has to wonder how dense you have to be to not notice the connection between the investigations into Biden, and Ukraine meddling with the 2016 elections. Why make it an issue now? Might have something to do with the 3 years of Russia gate investigations making it difficult to do his job and run investigations of his own. So rather than immediately jumping into it and surely facing accusations of political interference, he let the investigation conclude, exposing itself as completely baseless, before exposing the ones involved with his own investigations. The 3 years of Russia gate of COURSE were not politically motivated right? Nor were the investigations of everyone who ever did Trumps landscaping or laundry. Now of course Trump thinks investigations of the other party are prudent, well of course all of that can only be motivated by politics right? You have so many holes in your brain when the wind blows it whistles. |
|
|
|
What irony?
Careful you don't break your necks sucking each other off too hard while you fantasize and project.
You don't see yourself doing the slightest bit of fantasizing and projection there? Whew lordy. Do I have an entourage following me around agreeing with me like you do?
Not anymore. I don't see any except for yours. IS it really though? Or does any space that doesn't immediately censor and ban anyone right of Mao Zedong qualify as a "right wing circle jerk" to you?
The only one attempting to do any censoring around these parts is you. Remember your whole thread in Meta about not being able to censor people you disagree with? Real investigations are not done in public and take time.
They are so secretive that nobody ever hears about them and none of their findings ever result in any legal action. Pretty cool how when you are wrong about something you can just say, "...yet!!! Hasn't happened yet! It will someday though. Might be 20 years from now, but it could still happen! Therefore, I'm not wrong!" It really is a game-protect level maneuver. Biden is unlelectable not just because he is a documented molester, but because he is falling apart, incompetent, and is also yes, a criminal.
 I don't need an entourage, you seldom travel without one. Thanks for again proving you have trouble separating your personal feelings about discussions in Politics & Society and forum policy discussion in other sections. How long did the Russia-gate investigations last? 3 years? When did these accusations about manipulation in the 2016 elections start surfacing? Very recently. Democrats only allow investigations of their opponents though, investigations of anyone they support is just meddling of course. |
|
|
|
Careful you don't break your necks sucking each other off too hard while you fantasize and project.
Oh, the irony. Everyone knows when you get together with people who all agree with you your correctness instantly goes up 20%.
Usually P&S is a circle-jerkery of right-wingers, but you don't seem to be getting much support from your team in this thread. I suspect its because of a combination of things. Same stale failed formula. Accuse until you run out of arguments, then shift to the next accusation, and form groups of hive minded people to stand around and assure yourselves that THIS TIME you got him.
You just did that by pivoting from Biden's Ukraine involvement to him being a creepy old man. The only thing you're missing is the hive. I think they've moved on, perhaps in search of a new queen bee. What irony? Do I have an entourage following me around agreeing with me like you do? I don't see any except for yours. IS it really though? Or does any space that doesn't immediately censor and ban anyone right of Mao Zedong qualify as a "right wing circle jerk" to you? I am not pivoting from anything except in the 2 bit matinee playing in what is left of your brain. Real investigations are not done in public and take time. Fake political hacks run investigations like the ones against Trump via the media instead of via law enforcement, because media doesn't require facts. Biden is unlelectable not just because he is a documented molester, but because he is falling apart, incompetent, and is also yes, a criminal. |
|
|
|
|
Careful you don't break your necks sucking each other off too hard while you fantasize and project. Everyone knows when you get together with people who all agree with you your correctness instantly goes up 20%.
Same stale failed formula. Accuse until you run out of arguments, then shift to the next accusation, and form groups of hive minded people to stand around and assure yourselves that THIS TIME you got him. So what about those non-subpoena subpoenas?
|
|
|
|
Like I said, this is nothing new. Just more spectacles in a long parade of individuals making claims that never pan out, and you pretend it never happened as you line up the next one.
This is all stuff that has come out today and yesterday in the transcripts they just released from last weeks hearings. Sondland is a Trump appointee that clearly had Trumps back till today. btw, wtf is up with Kentucky electing a Dem Governor? Just because it came out today doesn't mean it reveals anything new. Just more "NO U!!!1" tactics in a perpetual assembly line of accusations never amounting to anything substantive. |
|
|
|
This isn't anything new or damning. Lets look at some quotes... "In his new testimony, Mr. Sondland said he believed that withholding the aid — a package of $391 million in security assistance that had been approved by Congress — was “ill-advised,” although he did not know “when, why or by whom the aid was suspended.” But he said he came to believe that the aid was tied to the investigations. “ I presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anticorruption statement,” Mr. Sondland said." "In his updated testimony, Mr. Sondland recounted how he had discussed the link with Andriy Yermak, a top adviser to President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, on the sidelines of a Sept. 1 meeting between Vice President Mike Pence and Mr. Zelensky in Warsaw. Mr. Zelensky had discussed the suspension of aid with Mr. Pence, Mr. Sondland said. “ I said that resumption of the U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anticorruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks,” Mr. Sondland said in the document, which was released by the House committees leading the inquiry, along with the transcript of his original testimony from last month." "Mr. Sondland’s new testimony contradicted the notion that he was a lone wolf pushing the quid pro quo idea himself, and portrayed him instead as just the messenger who had discovered there was a linkage between the aid and the investigations and articulated it to others. He said it “would have been natural for me to have voiced what I presumed” about what was standing in the way of releasing the military assistance." I see lots of presumptions, assumptions, and beliefs, but no evidence of anything but Trump doing investigations relating to the 2016 elections, as he is entitled to as the chief of the executive branch. Funny how Trump has been subject to nonstop investigations one after another since 2016 (and before really), and none of that is "for personal political gain", but Trump investigating a PASSED election, well that's just too far! The assertion that Trump needs to do this to win over Joe Biden is even more laughable. Joe can't even keep himself together, or his hands to himself. I think most of the witnesses have testified that the actual deal was for a press conference or some sort of public announcement so the world would know Biden was being investigated in exchange for the military stuff and a meeting at the White House. This would definitely make the "he was doing it for political reasons" argument stronger since a press release like that would be far more valuable politically right away. The investigation might turn up nothing or not finish till after the election. Also, that text message I posted was sent right after he got off the phone with Trump. Another thing that I think is super shady is how Trump sent Rudy over there (a private citizen) to work out the deal. Meanwhile, the State Dept people who handle foreign relations with Ukraine had no idea what was going on. That's just embarrassing and could affect the way other countries deal with our Ambassadors. The way they fired the Ambassador was also shady. You should read the transcripts and reports from her. Like I said, this is nothing new. Just more spectacles in a long parade of individuals making claims that never pan out, and you pretend it never happened as you line up the next one. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
